I swear guys... every post I make about this book (more like a compilation of various argumentative essays) is more difficult than the one before it. I know I wrote a post of this a while ago but sometimes it really is hard to completely choose on side of an argument.
This issue of the week this time is should the government censor and stop funding "controversial" art or not. Joseph Perkins's argument on the matter was one I actually found myself disagreeing with.
Perkins's view was that the government should stop funding the "controversial" art and censor it instead. He begins his essay with the example of one particular artist's version of the "Virgin Mary", in which she is surrounded by elephant dung in the painting.
He then goes on to call it a blatant attack on all the Catholics in New York where the painting is being displayed. This was where I first found myself disagreeing with Perkins. I don't believe that the artist's goal was to attack Christians and Catholics. Instead the work of art was probably meant to be somewhat thought provoking, shocking, and well... art. Was it a bit too much? Maybe. Was it offensive to some? Probably. But was it a direct attack? No.
Isn't the purpose of art to create something that shocks people and conveys the artist's views and creativity? How can you ask the government to take away stuff like that. I guess you just have to remember that no matter what you do its going to offend someone some how.
When I first started reading this book I thought it would be dry and easy to one side of an argument, but now I have discovered that this is not the case at all. This book has opened my eyes to issues that I never knew existed and issues that I never considered. I now really understand the importance of understanding both sides of an argument.
Alright this went on for a little longer than I would have liked but I still would love- no NEED to hear your feed back. Do you guys think that controversial art should be censored or encouraged?
Alright homies! peace out <3
This issue of the week this time is should the government censor and stop funding "controversial" art or not. Joseph Perkins's argument on the matter was one I actually found myself disagreeing with.
Perkins's view was that the government should stop funding the "controversial" art and censor it instead. He begins his essay with the example of one particular artist's version of the "Virgin Mary", in which she is surrounded by elephant dung in the painting.
He then goes on to call it a blatant attack on all the Catholics in New York where the painting is being displayed. This was where I first found myself disagreeing with Perkins. I don't believe that the artist's goal was to attack Christians and Catholics. Instead the work of art was probably meant to be somewhat thought provoking, shocking, and well... art. Was it a bit too much? Maybe. Was it offensive to some? Probably. But was it a direct attack? No.
Isn't the purpose of art to create something that shocks people and conveys the artist's views and creativity? How can you ask the government to take away stuff like that. I guess you just have to remember that no matter what you do its going to offend someone some how.
When I first started reading this book I thought it would be dry and easy to one side of an argument, but now I have discovered that this is not the case at all. This book has opened my eyes to issues that I never knew existed and issues that I never considered. I now really understand the importance of understanding both sides of an argument.
Alright this went on for a little longer than I would have liked but I still would love- no NEED to hear your feed back. Do you guys think that controversial art should be censored or encouraged?
Alright homies! peace out <3